Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:37, 21 November 2008

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Pakistan Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pakistan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pakistan on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PakistanWikipedia:WikiProject PakistanTemplate:WikiProject PakistanPakistan Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Inter-Services Intelligence received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Overhaul

I am gonna do a major overhaul of this page.

But I haven't had the time to devote to this page. Currently sprucing up and finishing up the Pakistan Army Page. The Military page is almost done, just need a couple of more pictures and thats it. History of the Pakistan Army is almost done as well just need some info on their UN duties and some pics. Then on to the ISI

"Responsible for terrorism in Pakistan"

I reverted Siddiqui's addition of the parenthetical clause "which is responsible for terrorism in Pakistan". What does this mean? If it means that RAW has performed or financed terrorist acts in Pakistan, then you must be more specific, and more importantly you must cite a source. Thanks. Babajobu 03:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC) i m yasir ali so please i don't knowledge.

Evidence obviously is very clear from the article. ISI has a history of terrorism. It has used innocent people specially Muslims all around the world for it on disgusting acts and benefits. ISI has a only one vested interests which is to look after the benefit of few army personals and fill their pockets with wealth. ISI has used innocent people from Pakistan and trained them in name of Islam and made them Talibans. Later on just for its own interest ISI turned her back rather provided full military support to kill them. I don’t mean to say that Tiliban were right but why create them in the first place. What other proof do you need. This just one example. History of ISI is full of corruption and terrorism not only with othe nations around the world but also with its own innocent people and in the name of religion. 7/7 bombing, 9/11, killing of prominent politicians in Pakistan (Bhutto family) etc. The list is endless. You name it. They are bunch of corrupt inhuman people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasee70 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Stranglehold

It seems that Indian users of wikipedia have a stranglehold on anything Pakistan related on wikipedia.

I guess I am the one who has to shoulder the burden of stopping this anti-pakistan campaign on wikipedia

I am almost done with edits on the Military of Pakistan, Pakistan Army and the History of the Pakistan Army pages.

Just need to add some references, notes, pictures and these articles are done.

Before I came along, all of these articles had some sort of "Controversy" type paragraphs attached to them.

Once the Navy, Air Force is done.

I am gonna fix up this page.

Mercenary2k 7:11 AM, 6 February 2006 (Toronto, Canada)

u r not an administrator, and you are from pakistan then tell me how are you going to be neutral??

220.227.152.109 10:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am going to fix up this page and give a neutral perspective. For example, Operation Ajax in 1953 was deemed a success in CIA and M16 but in essence it installed a dictator in Iran. So it was good for USA and UK but bad for Iran. So to present this in a neutral way, you talk about how it was beneficial for USA and UK and what strategic aims they achieved while in the same time you address what happened to Iran. Thats how. If you don't know how to do this, then I suggest you don't contribute here.

Mercenary2k March 7, 2006 19:l2 PM

Thats not a very kind way of talking to an anon. Please don't bite the newbies.-xC- 05:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

British support for the ISI

A statement was released by Ministry of Defence showing full support for Pakistan's intelligence services . Napoleon12 October 07, 2006 12:34 PM

Indian accusations against ISI go COLD

A lack of evidence presented on the table by India has created scepticism against their accusations. Especially, looking at Mumbai police's track record . Napoleon12 October 07, 2006 12:34 PM

STOP THIS VANDALISM

There is no concrete proof that ISI supports terrorism. These are just biased accusations to hurt Pakistani interests. Also, referencing from articles fill with personal assumptions is not going to cut it. Thus, I shall continue editing this article to keep it a high quality informative piece about one of the most lethal intelligence forces in the world. Napoleon12 October 08, 2006 1:13 PM

Your statement above contradicts the nature of Misplaced Pages. Might I ask you to read the five pillars of wikipedia? Misplaced Pages is not based on personal knowledge but on verifiablle sources. Misplaced Pages is not a source of truth but a distillation of information from verifiable sources. There is no requirement for concrete proof in wikipedia, only that the information be in reliable sources like major news organizations. --- Skapur 17:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I have not much to say accept, I will continue editing this article to expose the truth. Because, the people want the truth and not biased assusations. Napoleon12 October 08, 2006 1:35 PM

If you claim that ISI has no contacts with terror outfits, then provide a source on it. India and UK have in the past caught several terrorists who have claimed to be closely working with ISI. ISI cannot prove its innocence by refuting these claims. Anyways, major powers like India and UK raising a finger on the integrity of ISI, is an important issue and worth mentioning. Also, how do you plan to expose the truth? --Incman|वार्ता 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Given the sensationalist nature of today's news, a news organization is no longer a reliable source. This article is littered with various accusations by the ISI's enemies. Accusatiosn dont belong in this article. It is about the ISI.

What do you mean? The allegations against ISI were made by the Indian and UK governments. What do news agencies have to do with it? Also, the article discusses accusations against ISI and that does belong to this article. --Incman|वार्ता 15:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply to above: The Indian government is an enemy of Pakistan and its routine allegations are not something to be taken seriously. The British govt has not made any allegation at all against the ISI. Its only trickster media like BBC Newsnight who fudged a document to claim the British govt suspects ISI.

I'm afraid that you cannot simply discount "sensationalist" media in favour of your own opinions. The media have always been sensationalist; that's what sells papers. What is different in modern times is that we've seen media that aren't totally sensationalist, and then assume that, somehow, the sensationalism was the more recent addition, not the ever-present flow. As a major power-player in Pakistan, which is a power in the region which a serious modern history of military coups, the ISI or its members would be odd had they not been involved in such things. Mossad in Israel is famed and feared, and might (for all I know) have had some shady dealings within Israel's democratic processes. I don't think they have much, but I guarantee that the BBC, NBC and Reuters will know more than I do.

PS Using capital letters in a title is very poor form and a good indicator of the quality of the following work.Wee Jimmy (talk) 10:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Media Portrayal

Does pakistani movies portray ISI in their movies??. Also anybody remember hollywood movies portraying ISI??

i added a few movies which i knew of protrayed the ISI. if you guys know of any more, please add Mercenary2k 07:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

India admits that charges against ISI not clinching

Dawn article Napoleon12 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

ISI successfully infiltrates the Armed forces of India

BBC article 1 BBC article 2 Times of India Napoleon12 07:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

I came across this in a book titled The Terror Timeline by Paul Thompson which documents all events related to the war on terror.
"Nov. 29, 1999: UN Says ISI Makes Billions from Drugs"
"The United Nations Drug Control Programme determines that the ISI makes around $2.5 billion annually from the sale of illegal drugs. " (pg. 247).
There are a lot more interesting links between the ISI, drugs, and 9/11 documented in this book from reputable news sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.2.16.43 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC).
^that was me (just in case)Itoldalthea 01:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

hmm there probably are links between ISI and drugs, as financing is required for major operations. Same goes for many other intelligence agencies. There are no links between ISI and 9/11.

I am sorry but that's all i can see from indian sources which always bash pakistan so that will not do.The indian media has a history of creating fictional romours about "Pakistan this..." "Pakistan that.." So if you cannot find a more reliable source,it simply cannot go there.-Vmrgrsergr 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

REALITY:

The reality is that you can not blame our secret intelligence agency without any solid proofs.no one knows what actually is going on.but the fact remains , that it is this agency that is making sure there is nothing wrong being done or is being planned which is ofcourse not in the better interest of pakistan.as far as the funding for the operations is concerned,it is the ultimate responsibility of the state which is fulfiling it as when required in a fine manner.isi is not a corrupt organization.it has never been involved in heinous fund raising as described by some of our freind(enemy to be precise).you better mend your theories which are entirely based upon fabricated stuff.

ISI

Every newspaper in Pakistan and the current Supreme Court hearings have all stated that the ISI is more involved in politics and terrorizing Pakistanis than gathering intelligence against Pakistans enemies. According to Pakistan papers ISI has bugged the judges of the Supreme Court and kidnapped anyone who stands up to the Pakistan Army, so obviously there is a lot of documentation about the so called un-intelligent agencies

trueblood 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

all of that is already mentioned in the Controversy section Mercenary2k 04:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

ISI headquarters

ISI headquarters is next to the CDA office not next to Paksitan Parliment. Additionally the head quarters is a non desript buildings compound which is surrounded by high walls and always has army guards posted. It is not a white building like the one shown

trueblood 17:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

REALITY (Mr.TRUE BLOOD)

This country is running despite of so many hardships only due to secret info collected by isi.As far as the judges are concerned,they are busy in gaining personal interest.They can never be sincere to this beloved soil.They are busy in making money and gaining fame by destroying Army's image.True blood,remember one thing,it is our responsibility to protect and safeguard the image of our army.It is the only intitutiion which is working 24hrs sincerely to make sure no one dares to cause any harm to this country.And isi is making sure all is going on well and there is no obstacle in the path of success.Your opinion about isi is quite negative.When you do not know the facts then better shut up !

Article's structure

This article is composed of a variety of lists which make it in form of trivia article. The structure of this article should be rebuilt. I think that we shouldn't divide into two distinctive sections (Major successes and Major failure) for operations, instead merging into one under the same header, for example "Major operations" and arrange the events according to timeline. The division of "success" and "failure" makes it a little biased and original research. Why is it considered a success or a failure? Further, I see that this article still lacks a lot of required citations, for example the recruitment and the training sections with no citations given. @pple 03:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The history section is also not verified by reliable sources. It has only two four citations, which appears to be from one source totse.com. Information from this site shouldn't be used on Misplaced Pages, because TOTSE is an forum-based site of which primary goal is to promote freedom of speech. Thus I'll remove this reference. @pple 03:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I used the R&AW template to build this article. Mercenary2k 22:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

A thought

How ever i think so that every body is going to ignore the role of Pakistan,s paramilitry forces in Pakistan wars and in the days of peace.specialy i want to show you the one of the best and same like Pakistan Army a force which has every thing and capabalities and some where they are more then Permanenet Army of pakistan , so it is requested to Plz write down a complete feature and information on this .

Thanx

Uh.....what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.157.60.147 (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

WHY ???

Why at the start of history there is a paragraph about Narendra Modi ??

Doesnt make no sense.In the paragraph of history of ISI there should be only history about it nothing else nothing more.

Whoever wrote it does he/she have any proof of what he is talking about ??

Don't worry. It was a piece of nonsense and you were quite justified in deleting it. - Max 16:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ISI - Its Notorious History and Inhuman Operations:

I have seen ISI closely and know that these are the people who have no shame and humanity in them. They are not sincere with Pakistan, Pakistani people or Islam. They are there to suppress true Islam. Pakistan is the only country who was created to look after its Army. Normally Army is there to provide security to the residents of a state. This is evident from the facilities, salaries and benefits army personal in Pakistan enjoy. Army personal are of average intelligence and trained to fight enemy but Pakistan army is trained in corruption. Army officers (both retired and in service) are honoured with civilian departments administrations like WAPDA, NADRA, CDA and not only that in the political setup as well, ie Mushraf and his gang (who would probably don’t know even the definition of GDP). How one can expect from him to administer affair of the state. ISI has used its own innocent people and people around the world in name of Islam for Terrorism. List of examples is end less. One example of this terrorism which I specifically want to quote here is astonishing which makes you think how brutal few people could become for their own greed and benefits. Early quarter of 2007 ISI launched an operation in the border villages of Azad Kashmir viz Kotli, Sansha, Rawalakot, Aabbaspur etc. The purpose of this was to harass people using ISI’s old notorious techniques i.e. brutal killings, torturing etc. ISI agents’ sprayed some type of gas which made people unconscious. Once unconscious, they cut their throats with some sharp object. They started this operation from areas nearing Line of Control like Bhimber, kotli. The moved to suburbs of Rawalakot (singalo) where 2 of the ISI agents were caught by people of Rawalakot just after they went to a primary school and sprayed gas on innocent children. They were brought to civil police administration from where they were taken by military. ISI blamed that these were Indian intelligence agents. The question is why ISI would do that? Pakistan military has never been sincere with Pakistan or its People. The recent compromise with India and opening of borders from Muzffarabad is viewed a great threat to Pakistan Army. If Line of Control between both Kashmirs is finished then this scapegoat for army would be finished. Pakistan Army takes more than 75% budget form exchequer. In return what army has given back is lost half of the country, lost 4 wars with India, Killed thousands of its own innocent people in Bluchistan, Karachi, NWFP, FATA and FANA. 75% population of Pakistan lives in villages who are still deprived from the basic amenities of life like, roads, schools, electricity, clean water, sanitation etc. A junior army officer even after retirement gets millions of dollars worth of land and money not to talk about during service and in return they rob the country. I sincerely believe that ISI is a major cause of instability in the region and provides its western Masters a highway of opportunities to launch a war on Islam and suck out resources from the Islamic Lands. It backs up, trains and funds all so called Islamic militant groups to proxy terrorism which has no place in Islam. The children of ISI officers study in universities in London and Newyork. How do they afford it. As long as ISI is fulfilling its western Masters wills, west has given freehand to them in order to commit all the brutalities against innocent people. Division of indopak subcontinent was planned by West through her agents like Jinnah and is maintained by her agents like Pakistani secret services.

ISI and Taliban

Hi,

ISI has a definite history with Taliban. I have started a new section to discuss current relationship due to Bhutto assassination. I notice that there has been a lot of text deleted out of hand linking ISI with specific terrorist attacks, put in by others; I have added it back.

You can't fund terrorists without begetting terrorism eventually.

So let's discuss this.

I will add back in this text if it keeps getting deleted, until it is properly discussed.

Each of these allegations is linked to a Misplaced Pages article or a news sources.

Rather than deletion out of hand I think the more responsible things to do are:

• Cite articles with different evidence
• Identify the point of view of the cited articles, i.e. wikilink to the author or organization of the article if there are already articles on those author or organizations
• Similarly edit the linked-to Misplaced Pages articles if they show WP:POV or lack of balance or are logically inconsistent

Thanks, Erxnmedia (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ek1.jpg

Image:Ek1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Misplaced Pages article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Misplaced Pages:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Misplaced Pages policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Admission for stdy or training

I am 15 years old and I have interest in intelligency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.70.29 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dawood ibrahim.jpg

The image Image:Dawood ibrahim.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. --21:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

ISI and militant groups

These accusations have been made and are sourced. There is no POV in the article as to whether the accusations have any basis in fact or not. The article is simply saying that they have been made in reliable sources. As such, they are encyclopaedic and should not be removed. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No they shouldn't but I do question the necessity of putting Indian-news media sources. Everytime there is a bombing in India, the entire media there blames Pakistan's ISI. I might remove them unless they are cited by another non-Indian source. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. All of these so called accusations come from Indian Media which is notorios for jumping the gun and blaming ISI for every single bombing that occurs in India. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 19:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Misquoting

Under "Operations history" section, there is a paragraph reading

• (1984) ISI uncovered a secret deal in which naval base facilities were granted by Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to the USSR in Vizag and the Andaman & Nicobar Island and the alleged attachment of KGB advisers to the then Lieutenant General Sunderji who was the commander of Operation Bluestar in the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June 1984.

It is supposedly referenced from http://www.acsa.net/isi/index.html

But reading the page one finds this quote: "This covert colloboration between the ISI and the US intelligence community was also directed at discrediting Mrs.Indira Gandhi's international stature by spreading disinformation about alleged naval base facilities granted by her to the USSR in Vizag and the Andaman & Nicobar, the alleged attachment of KGB advisers to the then Lt.Gen.Sunderji during Operation Bluestar in the Golden Temple in Amritsar in June, 1984, and so on. This collaboration petered out after her assassination in October,1984."

So in essence, an article which states that the mentioned deal was infact a disinformation is being used as a reference for the opposite claim (i.e. that this secret deal really existed). This is against wikipedia policies and is not NPOV.

Ilija Pavlic (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Large Changes

I have removed most unsourced references in the article. If you're going to edit the article, please discuss it in the talk page first, and ensure that your additions are sourced. Otherwise, I will request protection for the page. CSHunt68 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)CSHunt68

I build this page. All references are sourced. Please do some research before removing them off hand. If you continue to do this, I will request protection for this page. Mercenary2k (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't own this page, so nobody cares that you "build" it. Not all of your references are sourced, and I have again removed the offending ones. There are more than a few notes in the article which rely upon two sources - one of them, at least, seems very sketchy at best, and I am tempted to remove them unless other corroborating references can be found. Feel free to do so, or I will alter the article to more closely reflect reality.CSHunt68 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

As well, I have re-added the References tag, and added an NPOV tag. Clearly, there are too few sources being used for too many allegations. Please discuss changes before making them. If you think these tags should be removed, please state why.CSHunt68 (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I propose that everything from Officers on down - most of which has NO references - be deleted, keeping only the Controversies section, which duplicates much of the Operations History section. The only references on any of these later sections are in Operations History, which draws upon such a small number of sources (some very questionable) that it seems pointless and unencyclopedic. Thoughts?CSHunt68 (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Everything has adequate references. Do not change this article.Mercenary2k (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I have every right to change this article. And I've already told you that large sections STILL do not have ANY references. Not only that, but you have repeatedly added notes that are not referenced at all. Also, I do not consider one small (clearly VERY biased) Internet article sufficient reference for providing such a large percentage of the entry.CSHunt68 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, you have AGAIN reverted to an old, unreferenced version of this document. For the last time, DO NOT MAKE CHANGES TO THIS DOCUMENT without first discussing them here. You did not even remark on the changes you made - which seems your usual modus operandi. Stop.CSHunt68 (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, you're resorting to reverting changes without logging in? Do you really think a checkuser can't be run on this IP address? If you revert this page again today, I will report you for violating 3RR - simple as that. Once again, you are not permitted to add unreferenced material to Misplaced Pages, and "rvv" is not a sufficient edit summary for the changes you've made. Period. This is your final warning.CSHunt68 (talk) 18:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Who the hell are you to dictate what is acceptable and what is not. You dont own wikipedia buddy. Everything that is written in this article is fully cited. Read the book I reference if you are that dubious about it. But dont go and do blind reverts when you dont have sufficient proof. This is your last warning.Mercenary2k (talk) 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You are in grave danger of violating 3RR on this article, and have deleted a large FULLY REFERENCED section to add large TOTALLY UNREFERENCED sections. The Operational History section has several entries which are not referenced at all, and many which rely upon one very small web page. I have not done blind reverts. I am attempting to stick to Misplaced Pages guidelines. I have warned you on your talk page. If you would like to be blocked, please continue on your current course of reverts without discussion here. If you would like to discuss this article, please start off by proposing why the large sections (which have NO references - Officers, Recruitment) which you have added should be retained. It is not enough to prompt users to read referenced books - Misplaced Pages entries must be properly referenced and sourced.CSHunt68 (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

(ui) Mercenary2k, since you continue to make changes to the article without discussion, I am left with the fact that your reverts are vandalism. I will continue to revert such changes immediately, REGARDLESS OF 3RR, as Misplaced Pages policies permit, until you come to the table to talk.CSHunt68 (talk) 16:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, this is at least the second time you're reverted this article without logging in to Misplaced Pages. Are you interested in discussing changes to the article? If so, please let me know here. I have asked for input from other Wikipedians here MANY times, including yourself - and directly on your talk page - and you have not, to date, responded positively. Please advise. CSHunt68 (talk) 21:21, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, I have reverted and posted at WP:ANI regarding your behaviour, as well as on your talk page.CSHunt68 (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

CSHunt68 stop your vandalism. I know you are an Indian in disguise trying to undermine this article. Get a life. All the missions and rest of your reverts have proper citations. Dont know why you are so obsessed with this article. Mercenary2k (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I have noted your activities (continued revert, failure to discuss changes here, deletion of my entries on your talk page, deletion of your edit-warring warning from an administrator on your talk page, and your useless, uncivil, and untrue posting here) in WP:ANI. Your behaviour is not appreciated.CSHunt68 (talk) 04:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

So you are an Indian. Why dont you go to the Research and Analysis Wing and edit that and leave this alone. Mercenary2k (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not an Indian. Stop your whining and ranting. The current problems with the article are, as noted previously: several large, totally unreferenced sections; your removal of a large HEAVILY referenced source; your use of a single small web page for a huge number of entries in the Operational History section. Do you care to address these comments?CSHunt68 (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those large and heavily sourced areas are op/ed articles written by people who are anti-pakistan. Get some neutral sources. The Operational History section is referenced from books, and websites. There is not a whole wealth of material on ISI's operational history so this is the best we have to do for now. If you can find other sources be my guest. But don't remove cited sources. These issues have been addressed. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

That's your opinion, that they're "anti-pakisan" (sic). They are heavily referenced, and should be added back. The Operational History section needs to be referenced properly for Misplaced Pages standards. And MOST of the items don't come from books, they come from ONE website. If that's the best that can be done, it should be deleted. It can't be added back unless it's properly cited. These issues have not been addressed that I can tell. If so, where. Please sign in properly. CSHunt68 (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

• "South Asia Analysis Group " :
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/kashmir/Story/0,2763,722049,00.html| title= Dangerous game of state-sponsored terror that threatens nuclear conflict| accessdate=2006-05-05| first= Rory | last= McCarthy}}
  • {{cite web| url=http://www.saag.org/papers3/paper287.html| title=PAKISTAN'S INTER-SERVICES INTELLIGENCE (ISI)| accessdate=2006-05-05| first=B| last=Raman}}
• "FAS" :
  • {{cite web|url=http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/|title="Directorate for ISI" article on FAS, Intelligence Resource Program}}
  • {{cite web| url= http://www.fas.org/irp/world/pakistan/isi/| title= Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence | accessdate=2006-05-05| first=John| last= Pike }}

DumZiBoT (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

protected due to edit war

As a result of the recent edit war between CSHunt and Mercenary2k, I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your content disputes by discussing in this talk page. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

protected due to edit war

As a result of the recent edit war between CSHunt and Mercenary2k, I have protected the article for 1 week. Please resolve your content disputes by discussing in this talk page. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 06:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an absolutely ridiculous solution, as you would have noticed from Mercenary2k's behaviour, if you'd investigated AT ALL. Here's what's going to happen: I'm going to ask Mercenary to discuss things on the talk page. He's going to ignore me. I'm going to post on his talk page - and perhaps administrators are as well. Mercenary is going to delete these postings. The block is going to expire. For lack of any discussion, I'm going to BE BOLD and implement the changes I feel are appropriate - by reverting. Mercenary is going to revert my changes, noting "revert vandalism". Rinse and repeat. You need to find a better solution.CSHunt68 (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Your suggested actions will only cause a longer protection of the page. Please refer to dispute resolution processes to resolve your edit dispute with the other party. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As you are aware, I am TRYING dispute resolution. Your intervention has been SINGULARLY unhelpful. Please stay away, if you are unable to otherwise help resolve this issue. Thank you.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Mercenary2k, I am asking again why you have deleted a large, heavily referenced section (ISI and Militant Groups), while retaining both sections which are totally unreferenced (the ones I've been deleting) and one that draws almost exclusively on one small web page (Operational History). Please involve yourself in the discussion.CSHunt68 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Those large and heavily sourced areas are op/ed articles written by people who are anti-pakistan and besides all of that is already covered in the controversy section. No need to create another section where you can do more ISI bashing. G The Operational History section is referenced from books by people who ran the ISI, and websites from people who are ISI experts. There is not a whole wealth of material on ISI's operational history so this is the best we have to do for now. If you can find other sources be my guest. But don't remove cited sources. These issues have been addressed. 216.13.76.61 (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

They aren't heavily sourced. They mostly aren't sourced at all. Don't accuse me of "ISI bashing". You're violating WP:CIV. The Operational History section is mostly sourced from ONE website. It's not enough. These issues are far from being addressed. Please sign in, Mercenary2k. CSHunt68 (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are back to square one as you guys have resumed the edit war without trying any resolution via discussion. I have protected the page for 2 weeks, and will indef-protect it if you do not reach a resolution by this time. PLEASE start a discussion listing the core of your contention. --Ragib (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Pakistan articles
• Top-importance Pakistan articles
• WikiProject Pakistan articles
• Old requests for peer review